Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds the useful detail that results are enriched with resolved author/technician/group names, but says nothing about empty-result or pagination behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource comes first and the enrichment detail follows. It is efficient, though arguably thin enough that it leaves the definition under-specified rather than merely concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the annotations cover read safety. What remains missing is usage context: prerequisites for changeId, behavior on an unknown change, and how this differs from sibling list/get tools.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, including enum explanations for 'format' and 'fields' and the 'range' pagination hint, so the schema carries parameter semantics. The description contributes nothing beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline of 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb (list) and scoped resource (tasks for a change), and names the enrichment fields returned (author, technician, group names). This implicitly separates it from glpi_list_ticket_tasks and glpi_list_problem_tasks, but it never names those siblings or explicitly contrasts scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g. the change must exist / be visible to the caller), and no mention of alternatives such as glpi_list_change_followups or glpi_get_change. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.